I spent the better part of Monday on the phone with Republican Hill staffer after Republican Hill staffer after … well, you get the picture. I was on the phone a lot. The question we all asked each other: “What are you hearing?” The conventional wisdom from the DC GOP kids? House Republicans will be fine, pick up of maybe three in the US Senate, but Bush will lose. Again, this is not based on "inside" numbers, it's just the feelings of those Hill staffers we talked to. (Bear in mind, Hill staffers tend to think everyone is stupid except them, so take it for what it’s worth.)

Posted by Tim Blair at November 2, 2004 11:00 PM

Comments

IMPORTANT COMMENTS NOTE. See that number below the Post button? You must enter that number into the field beneath it in order to leave a comment. Thank you. You’re welcome.

Nice last minute attacks on kerry that don't seem to be coherent in the least.

Who cares if kerry got scratched or whatever and got medals. I don't care about the medals, I care that he volunteered to go as a soldier. Not a draft dodging clinton, not a "military journalist" gore... and not a republican chickenhawk http://www.chickenhawkcards.com/archive.html

He just went and did his duty, so lay off.

And before you say "but he's using it to advantage by saluting the crowd and saying 'reporting for duty'" how about we look at Bush in his flight gear on the deck of an aircraft carrier with that oh so infamous banner over his head.

Bottom line is, even if Kerry didn't become an all-american rambo he still volunteered and went as a soldier. Which is more than can be said for Bush.

So I think you guys should lay off and stop bashing ANYONE who has done their military service and duty.

look I don't care if you are left or right, the facts are that kerry did a more involved service to his country re: Vietnam than Bush did.

And it doesn't matter if you think the war was wrong or right, you support the troops. Criticise the politicians if you will, but not troops.

Just like with this war in Iraq, to which I was opposed (but not to the war on terror), they are our soldiers, they follow orders. So they shouldn't be spat on like those stupid accusations against kerry.

Go look at McCain, Bush used the same tactics against him. He's a freakin' war hero and they played so freakin dirty. I am sick of chickenhawks attacking good men who signed up for their country. It's a disgrace. Attack his haircut, his stance on abortion or whatever, but don't attack his military record. That is just outright scum-baggery and there are a hell of alot of servicemen who agree with me, we may or may not like kerry's other stuff, that's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't diss out on someone who volunteered to serve their country in a time of war.

I suggest people stfu on this topic, because the more they diss out servicemen like kerry or mccain the more they show that they are not patriots. Because you could ONLY be a america-hating (or australia-hating) person if you diss out on the servicemen.

I have something here that’s not exactly a bombshell, but I wish I had remembered it when Kerry spoke of a “global test.”

Joe Biden is Kerry’s man for Secretary of State. And what of the “global test” for our actions in the war against the terrorists?

Some here may remember this. October 2003, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, a Wesley Clark operative, & other Dems met with Euro social democrats to discuss “common strategies” & “political globalization” & concerns over “European concern over current US foreign policy and the effects of globalization” (presumably economic), a meeting for preparing in case the left regains simultaneous power on both sides of the Atlantic. (Since then, the EU twice threatened to target electorally important US states with retaliatory tariffs in response to Bush Administration policies. Spoiling for a fight, it seemed.) Anyway, the Dems & Eurosocs have some strategic planning in place. Technically at least, the Eurosocs are much further to the left than the US Dems with whom they met. So at the least, the meeting was indeed about strategies, whether or not it was also about ideology. “Political globalization” sounds ominous indeed.

“Labour forges ties with US' Democrats” Aftenposten (Norway), Oct. 23, 2003. The meeting seems to have snuck under most press radar. Rush Limbaugh once read this article on the air but got the date wrong—he thought it was current. The article’s Web page at that time was a little more confusing about the date than it is now.http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article653868.ece

Excerpt:

Norway's Labour Party is joining other European social democrats in linking up with the Democrats in the US. The goal is to be prepared with common strategies if a majority of them on both sides of the Atlantic come back to power.

A group of European social democrats, led by former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, met last week with several top Democratic politicians and party officials. They included US senators Hilary Clinton and Joseph Biden.

They also had meetings with Ron Klain of presidential candidate Wesley Clark's campaign, and Stan Greenberg, former US President Bill Clinton's campaign strategist in 1992.

On the agenda was European concern over current US foreign policy and the effects of globalization.

Espen Barth Eide, who led the Norwegian delegation, said the group met understanding that economic globalization must be accompanied by political globalization.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯99

In an Indonesian article elsewhere but no longer online, I read (with the aid of online automatic translation) that the meeting took place in New York.

Sorry, I messed up. The direct quote includes the unitalicized “Espen Barth Eide, who led the Norwegian delegation, said the group met understanding that economic globalization must be accompanied by political globalization.”

So Layoff, how about we limit the vote to only those who served in combat? What do you think Kerry's chances would be?
How about we limit it to members of the Coastal Patrol Unit that were there in Vietnam with him?

Layoff needs to layoff the expresso beans and lattes. Methinks your heartrate is way too high; if you don't, your cardiovascular system might shut down before the election results are annnounced tonight.

It’s so funny to hear people who hate the military rant against “dissing” the serviceman Kerry. Then they shift tactics when it comes to servicemen—hundreds of swift boat vets & ex-POWs, including ex-POW George “Bud” Day, the USA’s most highly decorated living veteran—criticizing ex-serviceman Kerry whose service discharge remains clouded by his now admitted keeping secret of records.

No, Ron, that's the NATION's flower. We've had a site in Hampton that's been under construction for oh, about 25 years. And I'd like to get a hold of whoever designed the on ramp from Chippenham to I-95 in Richmond and make him do traffic control. It's a @%#$ nightmare. There's an accident there at least twice a week.

Sorry, you kind of touched a nerve there (almost got sideswiped this morning on the way to work after voting). This ends the rant for today.

It wasn't just Clinton blocking his view. How about Edwards,and the ghosts of FDR, Wilson and Lincoln. Hopefully, it will dawn on some voters that they are standing in line with no analogous experience to Jakarta and Madrid to contemplate. Somebody must have done something right.

BTW, jerkoff...er..um..layoff, Kerry applied for the Swifts because they were not involved in combat ops. It was after he was accepted that they were given new orders. And Bush, on the other hand, volunteered to go to Vietnam, but the F-102s he flew were being pulled from combat and rotated back to the states because they were not successful in Vietnam, and in case you did not realize, it takes the military a bunch of time and money to retrain pilots to fly new aircraft types, so he was not sent over. So layoff the Kerry bravado crap. He tried to get out, just was a victim of timing.

And it doesn't matter if you think the war was wrong or right, you support the troops. Criticise the politicians if you will, but not troops.

Just like with this war in Iraq, to which I was opposed (but not to the war on terror), they are our soldiers, they follow orders. So they shouldn't be spat on like those stupid accusations against kerry.

Or like how Kerry falsely accused his "Band of Brothers" of war crimes after he came home, right?

I wonder why the Kerry campaign waited until now to release this little tidbit. I suppose they didn't want to capitalize on his service and imply that his experience as a Navy LT in Vietnam is sufficient qualification for Commander in Chief. If only I had gotten this information before I voted for Bush.

All kidding aside, I'm happy to take his military career at face value. He did more than some, and I applaud his service. It's his actions immediately on returning to the US and subsequent political career that give me pause.

Why applaud Kerry's Vietnam Service? He isn't proud of it, or he would release his military records for all to see and be proud of him too. To me he got caught in a Swiftboat change of mission, trumped up 3 Purple Hearts, dumped his crew, and got out of Dodge.

When he got back he revved up his antiwar activities and received a less than honorable discharge. Can I prove it? No! Can Layoff prove me wrong? No! Both are speculating until he releases the records. I will never forgive the MSM for not hounding him like they hounded Bush over his records.

If all there is to his records is overwhelming praise and admiration, he'd release them in a minute and rub Bush's nose in it. This emperor has no clothes!

I asked my ex-husband on the phone today (our youngest with her 3 kids moved back in with him so I have to deal with it) about his honorable discharge from the service (1966-1969) and whether he had had to have a board of review with it. He said that no, he didn't. That no one he knew did.

That's why Kerry won't release his records. He was probably granted amnesty by President Carter (spit!), and the board of review cleared him to get an honorable discharge.

I'd voted for a person who was trained to fly fighter jets over a person who cut and ran as quickly as he could from combat.

As has been mentioned - both tried to avoid infantry duty. Kerry thought he was being safe, when suddenly the mission changed and he got sent over. In actuality, based upon mortality reports, Bush had the more dangerous duty, although I will concede that being on a river in Nam wouldn't be a great experience. Kerry lied about his wounds in order to get out ASAP where he turned on his band of brothers and lied about his experiences in order to further his political ambitions. Oh and by the way, I can say that he was not intially honorably discharged, otherwise the hearing held on his record in the military never would have happened. I don't know exactly what he got, but he was not honorably discharged. None of what I have written is opinion, but rather all researchable from reputable sources. Layoff, if you think Kerry cares about the military, you shouldn't be voting. He hates America because of its strength, and its resting upon the tradions and institutions that made this country great. He hates it all. He is dangerous and if he wins, will be a one termer with a presidency more damaging than Carters. (so now we know why carter wants him elected)

And to all those Washington staffers, grab a drink. Bush will easily win the overall and grab around 300 EC votes. It will not be a late night overall. Plus Daschle looks to be on his last legs, thank goodness.